2014 clean rivers, clean lake -- why value lakes
TRANSCRIPT
About Us The Fiscal and Economic Research Center (FERC)
at the University of Wisconsin – Whitewater analyzed the economic impact of lakes.
Lakes Provide Many Benefits Among them:
Increase in property values
Spending
More visitors
Higher quality of life
Increase in Property Value Many studies have been conducted to determine the
effect(s) a lake has on it’s surrounding properties.
Doss & Taff (1996), Thibodeau & Ostro (1981)
A common finding in the literature is that lakes positively impact property values.
This effect has been estimated to be between 2-5%
Simply put, a property close to (or on) a lake is expected to be worth 2-5% more than a property that isn’t.
Increase in Property Value Lakefront Property Premiums: on average, what is the
added value of a property on a lakefront?
Red Cedar Lake = +$1,303
Beaver Dam Lake = +$986
Chetek Lake = +$832
Prairie Lake = +$537
Tainter Lake = +$414
Menomin Lake = +$159
Spending The FERC previously examined the daily expenditures
of residents living on several of Wisconsin’s lakes.
Results, presented in the next few slides, show the spending tendencies of lake residents, both part-time and full-time.
Increase in Visitors Lakes have the effect of increasing visitors, especially
those that use lakes for recreation (fishermen).
The increase in visitors also has a positive impact on local businesses.
The following slides show the results from two separate surveys of fishermen.
Visitors: 2005 Study in Delavan Expenditure category Mean expenditure*
Lodging accommodation (Hotel fee for ONE NIGHT)
$2.55
Groceries and liquor $3.22 Bait and tackle $2.70 Launch fees $8.93 Dining out $8.67 Entertainment such as movies, clubs, lounges, sports activities, etc…
$0.21
Shopping—tourist $0.16 Shopping—general $2.46 Gas/oil for vehicles/boats $6.02 Licenses, registrations, permits (fishing, boat, auto)
$3.57
All other expenditures $1.91 Total daily expenditures $34.97 Statistics presented in this table are based on analysis of an interim survey dataset containing data from 186 survey respondents. * Missing were treated as zero
Visitors: 2012 Study in Madison Money Spent on Kegonsa Mendota Monona Waubesa
Lodging* $ 7.23 $ 14.51 $ - $ 0.71 Food and Beverage* $ 15.64 $ 21.95 $ 4.70 $ 11.04 Bait and Tackle* $ 3.08 $ 4.51 $ 1.49 $ 3.34 Gas or other fuels* $ 11.36 $ 10.46 $ 7.15 $ 9.73 Boat or equipment rental
$ - $ 0.05 $ - $ -
Gifts/Misc. $ 0.17 $ 0.10 $ - $ 0.17 Other $ - $ 1.58 $ - $ - Single Person Total $ 37.48 $ 53.16 $ 13.34 $ 24.99 Average Party Size 2.78 2.32 2.12 2.65
Party Total $ 104.19 $ 123.33 $ 28.28 $ 66.22 *indicates highest and lowest values removed to control for outliers
Fund for Lake Michigan The FERC recently collaborated with the Fund for Lake
Michigan in order to determine the economic impact of their projects.
Each had a specified goal such as restoring water quality, enhancing wetlands, improving storm water runoff, installing riparian buffers, etc.
Not only do these projects create jobs and stimulate the economy, but there are social gains too.
Higher quality of life
Conclusions Lakes are an important aspect of life in Wisconsin.
They provide us with many benefits:
Tangible, such as higher property values
Intangible, such as higher quality of life
References Braden, J. B., & Johnston, D. M. (2004, November). Downstream
Economic Benefits from Storm-Water Management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 130(6), 498-505
Brander, L. M., Florax, R. J. G. M., & Vermaat, J. E. (2006). The Empirics of Wetland Valuation: A Comprehensive Summary and a Meta-Analysis of the Literature. Environmental & Resource Economics, 33, 223-250.
Doss, C. R., & Taff, S. J. (1996). The Influence of Wetland Type and Wetland Proximity on Residential Property Values. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 21(1), 120-129.
References Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., & Covich, A. (2000).
Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics, 33, 103-117.
Thibodeau, F. R., & Ostro, B. D. (1981). An Economic Analysis of Wetland Protection. Journal of Environmental Management, 12, 19-30.
Wise, S., Braden, J., Ghalayini, D., Grant, J., Kloss, C., MacMullan, E., Morse, S., & al. (2008). Integrating Valuation Methods to Recognize Green Infrastructure's Multiple Benefits. Chicago, IL: Center for Neighborhood Technology.